Saturday, April 18, 2009

A Blank Spot

Due to a certain situational crunch that does not comport with being active online, this blog will not be updated for the next 2 or 3 weeks. But fear not, I ain't goin' nowhere. . . ;)

All comments and e-mails will eventually get processed.


Tuesday, April 14, 2009

A Little Chat Somewhere in the Sector

Aye, a little conversation at the crossroads!

The postings on this blog are syndicated to several different places. One of those venues is a particular men's rights forum, where an interesting discussion followed from the post immediately prior to this. See News From the Real World.

The first to respond was a certain 'Hahoo', whom I will call a "pro-male partisan" since I am not sure if he calls himself an MRA, and heaven help me, but if I called him that he might skin me alive! ;)

I have been acquainted with Hahoo for quite some time, under the various web names he has employed, and let me say that he is a forward-thinking man, a man of advanced ideas and considerable savvy. Put it this way: he drinks upstream from the herd.

Hahoo makes the following comment:

Originally Posted by hahoo:
"Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state?

"There are so many things wrong with the MRM..

"Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..

"Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc..

"Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists..

"Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..

"Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway!

"Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!

"Whenever I see MRAs and fathers activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!

"Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!"

In answer to Hahoo's comment I, Fidelbogen, posted the following, in the customary internet manner of "snip and respond":

Originally Posted by hahoo:
Where is the condemnation of the whole concept of child support as dictated by the state? There are so many things wrong with the MRM..

Firstly, they start off from pretty much the same position that the feminists do..
Bleating about how they are "oppressed" and demanding "rights" etc
I see that I am looking at the problem from a whole different vantage than you are, but. . . I must admit that your vantage is excellent. You are making me ponder.

Really, from the standpoint of pure STRATEGY, the "bleating" which you describe is about the worst behavior I can imagine. (Although it may sometimes have tactical value. . .)

But seriously, when you are dealing with a force like feminism, you are dealing with a BULLY. And bleating doesn't work with a bully; it just makes you a punk; it makes you a sucker! Which is why I am developing a philosophy of ruthless psychological arm-twisting in dealing with the feminists and their allies. Start with a cogent analysis, a map of the terrain. Then, AGITATE, and activate the world against them. After a certain point, you are dealing from a position of power, and then the whole game changes . . .
Then, they use the same tactics as the feminists..

Whinging, complaining, asking nanny state to give a shit.. which it doesnt! The state simply wants to extract the max it can get away with from the fathers, to subsidise its own expenses in family destruction..
All right, I try to see the tactical advantage in this: It generates publicity; it makes more people aware of the problem. Which means that you can begin to engineer a demographic groundswell against feminist ideology and politics. Eventually, this is like shaking a big, fat political fist in their face. That is the language which a bully understands.

As the feminists would say, it's empowering.

And once you've got that kind of power, you can begin to organize and do ALL kinds of things, limited only by your creative imagination. Yes, guys like yourself could THEN step up and start preaching your anti-statist gospel, and do so FAR more effectively, with a primed and receptive audience. . .
Child support is nothing other than an additional "tax" burden that targets fathers, who have no fucking rights anyway!

Men are not responsible for childrens upbringing, the state is, that is clear because men are DENIED their natural role!!

Whenever I see MRAs and father's activists talking about child support, they are forever moaning about the LEVELS of child support, NOT the whole sick concept of it!!
First things first: Build a support base; build a mass movement. And in order to do THAT, you must be careful what you preach during the initial stages. It is like building a campfire: you must nurse the small flame along very very carefully, shelter it, blow on it gently, feed it the driest of tinders, and work your way up to kindling, etc, et al. If all goes well, then soon you've got a roaring blaze, with people gathered around to warm themselves, and you can give away firebrands to those who need them. . .

Once you've got that mass movement started, all things become possible. But in the early stages, the important thing is publicity, and the best plan for THAT is to appeal to public emotion without advocating ideas that are TOO controversial or too far ahead of what the public mind can readily comprehend . . .

When you generate that mass base, you prepare the ground; you foster a climate where people dare to entertain novel ideas. You grease the wheels and get them rolling; you generate the momentum of change in the first place.

And having once gotten to THAT point, you step up and start preaching.
Men do not VOLUNTARILY give up their kids, they are removed from them. Thus, they are PREVENTED from supporting their kids!
Excellently said. I must remember that!

In response to my response, Hahoo wrote at VERY great length, the following:

Originally Posted by hahoo:
Yes, I have a feeling I need to put together my thoughts..

The problem is, there are many, many thoughts..

They are also integrated from many years of being honed on varied forums in response to the usual stimuli..

My difficulty is, I cant really address the masses, I never have been able to, my message only comes across correctly to those who have studied the ground and been dealing with the masses themselves..

The masses are too brainwashed..

I have a natural disinclination for dealing with brainwashed people!!

I have a natural inclination to swearing at them in frustration and stuffing their dicks in their mouths as they seek to show me their wonderful "new formula for the fair child-support levels.."

Experts in the mens movement have been telling me all along that i am jumping ahead, that I have to feed the info out bit by bit..

But, I dont seem able to do that, because it is too bloody much!!

I can put it simply, the state has stolen our roles under the pretext of "childrens best interest"..

But the state does not have a VESTED INTEREST in our children like we parents do!!

The states vested interest is in its future slave stock.. Not the same level of interest as what parents have!!

And, the state is NOT A PARTY TO the decision to CREATE children.. That is decided by parents alone!!

Hence, the state really should NOT be claiming OUR children!

Should not be artificially constraining and defining our relationships with our children.. Or each other..

And we really need to to get this message across!!

The "moderate" MRM gets the support of the masses..

In the same way as a bus would get the support of the masses if they wanted to be moved..

I want the masses to claim the appropriate vehicle to move them, one that runs on THIER OWN timetable, not state decree!!

You know, several years ago I used to frequent a mens forum, and they were forever bragging about their "perfect" court orders, how they had contact with their kids just as they wanted, how they defined it..

What fools!!

Do we want to run to a fucking weekly timetable in our dealings with our kids?

Is that what MEN really want?

If thats what they want, then they deserve to get nothing but ripped the piss out of!!

We really need to move towards understanding a certain fact of life..

Parents should have open access to their kids, that is how parents do their job best..

Court orders should not be needed!!

"Child support" is raising your kids, not paying the other parent money!!

Anyway, I may be changing my emphasis in this game shortly..

It seems that there is a need for some education material to be created and developed!!

I May be joining the blogosphere shortly, something I thought I would never do!!

There are many good writers in the MRM, I will have to read up on them a bit more and add my contributions..

They are certainly easier fellows to work with than the brain-dead plebs that you find in the pussy-whipped moderates groups!!

Id turn the whole system on its head..

The list of "family law" crimes would probably start with the first and foremost crime..

Impeding a parent in his/her contact with his/her children..

The state does not need to know WHY a parent is wanting to have contact with his/her children..

It needs to know WHY a person is seeking to stop this!!

Simply put, a father should be able to enter any home, building, anywhere, where his kids are and the offences that may be committed under these circumstances would relate primarily to ANYONE WHO IMPEDES HIM!

Easy eh?

Dont pity the lawyers that would lose their business!

In the case of parents wanting CS money off another parent..

The issue should be..

Why are the kids living with the parent who does not have the means to support them?

Would it not be better to have them homed with the parent that has the money?
In response to Hahoo's statement, or to the discussion as a whole, a certain Knackered Old Knight™ cinched up all the threads in a few quick strokes:

Originally Posted by Percy:
Military concept - 'Friendly Forces'.

Biblical stance - 'The enemy of mine enemy, is my friend'.

Contemporary culture - "Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you glad to see me'?

Let's hear it for Cheryl Quiambao.
Since forum threads can be like vampires, I have retired from this one lest I get sucked dry and sucked away from other matters. I have said my say for the moment.

But wait. . . not quite, for it pleases me to expand a bit more, here in the leisurely space of my study, for the benefit of CF readers at large.

Naturally, I am licking my chops in anticipation of Hahoo's projected blogospheric debut. For we could certainly use some new blood around here, if you will pardon the expression! ;) Hahoo says that the writers of the MRM are an easier lot to work with, and since he speaks in comparative terms based on his own experience, who am I to doubt his assessment? We writerly ones can dispense with moderation because we type away in our ivory towers free from the exigencies of real-world political engagement: our freedom is to speak with candor.

Hahoo and I have both arrived at a similar conclusion, namely, that you must not "beg" for things from any so-called established authority, but simply take what is properly yours by whatever means, beginning with a rhetoric of straightforward, uncompromising demand. I like to summarize this strategy by saying that "the time for argument is past", or again by saying "I don't argue with feminists, I tell them things!" Feminism's supposed "authority" is a bald-headed presumption, a massive fraud, a swindle from the very outset, and within our sovereign hearts and minds we continue uncolonized by that presumption, that fraud, that swindle.

Now, while Hahoo focuses somewhat monomaniacally upon the crimes against fathers and families,—and views that situation through the lens described above—I am paradoxically a monomaniacal generalist. For me, the game is the thing; the whole chessboard! I sit on my mountain top with my spyglass, scoping the battle plain below and analyzing what I see—miles and miles of it. Yet I cannot fix my gaze for long upon one point, for I am distractable. I strive to comprehend the entire mess as an organism; as a unity; as one thing, held together by laws. Hence, mono-mania.

Hahoo's impatience for revolution, though certainly understandable, is that of a man who would set a match to a log in hope that it would straightway catch fire. His impatience with so-called moderates is also understandable; it is an impatience I fully share. And yet I counsel moderation, NOT because my views are moderate, but rather because I know as a point of sheer pragmatism, that some revolutions must be brought about by systematic steps if they are to be brought about AT ALL. Yes. . . I am also a pragmatist. That might be the most important thing about me: in the end, my "moderation" is really pragmatism.

Whatever moves things forward, moves things forward. That is my governing maxim: it is objectively unbeatable. And if, let us say, the bus goes only halfway to your destination, and is filled with people you could happily live without, what of that? You are still halfway to your destination, and if worse comes to worst you can always walk the remaining distance—which is always better than walking the entire way.

The general public mind is the mind of a simpleton. Don't expect too much too fast in the way of comprehension. The collective mind is slow to grasp a novel idea, and having once done so, equally slow to release hold of it in favor of the next idea. On and on it goes; it is maddening, but what can you do? Still, it is hardly surprising: if you have ever tried to redirect the belief system of just one individual, you know how hopeless THAT can be. So, just imagine the colossal energy required for a collective mind transformation involving millions, and don't be hard on yourself if your heart quails at the task.

In the realm of mass movement formation, resign yourself to a slow build, a gradual ramping effect, an incrementative stair-stepping process of awakening realization. You can't normally expect the masses to leap from A to Z in a single bold flash. You must introduce them to B, and C, and so on. By the time you arrive at (say) H, they just might make that titanic leap to Z . . . or then again, you might need to walk them a few steps further. Bear in mind also, that in the realm of propaganda a "big truth" works just as well as a "big lie"—the operative principle being merely that of repetition.

The main reason activated sector partisans such as MRAs shoot themselves in the foot and give themselves an image problem, is that they talk too far above the heads of the larger world. Furthermore, they do this audibly. Very audibly. Too audibly. And stridently. And the bearing of their discourse is often quite obscure; they tend to fulminate intemperately about subtle categories of offense and grievance which the average outsider—feminist or otherwise—cannot directly get a handle upon. Worse yet, they call out bad things about women with such reckless abandon and such wild disregard for rhetorical discipline, that for the average outsider it is too apt to sound like "misogyny"—which in a few individual cases it may in fact be. Of course, the feminists are lightning-quick to bang the misogyny gong at such moments because, being feminists, they would do that! So in a sense, it takes two to tango.

To sum up, I would fault "Joe MRA" for his lack of rhetorical discipline as sketched above, and more to the point his hot-headedness in the public eye. He wields the flamethrower, the broadsword, the sledgehammer, the neanderthal club. He needs to get acquainted with the stiletto.

And I would fault the pro-male movement at large, for neglecting not just rhetorical discipline, but a related thing called message discipline. It is important to keep things simple, to drive home a limited number of carefully selected points, to spotlight both the clear and undoubted transgressions against men, and feminism's clear and undoubted entanglements in such matters. Harp upon these things; be a "Johnny one-note." It is a winning strategy to know your enemy's weak points and concentrate your firepower overwhelmingly upon those points. Don't be an MRA who lugs extra baggage, who sets extraneous political issues on the table—that makes the battle unnecessarily large and victory less certain! Let the movement present a "no-frills MRA" image to the world at large; a non-exceptionable surface.

So really, you needn't roar to make your point. For example, instead of screaming that "feminism must be destroyed!!", why not discourse calmly upon the neutralization of anti-male politics, and explore the varied methodologies that might carry such neutralization into effect? You will surely draw more listeners that way, because you will intrigue them—it's all in the way you say it! Moreover, you'll stand a better chance of engaging their sympathy: not only do you appear in a more flattering light, but you present yourself as against anti-male politics rather than against "feminism". And never fear: the deeper truth—that these two things are identical—will be lost upon the generality, or at least until such time as they attain this realization in their own way, and comprehend the truth of it for themselves.

By keeping it simple, by keeping it focused, by keeping it suave, and by keeping to things that the broad mass of people can readily (and viscerally) comprehend, we will activate the non-feminist sector and swell the potential demographic army against feminism. After that, the sky's the limit.

Monday, April 13, 2009

News From the Real World

Hey! Nip on over to Glenn Sacks's website and read the following very important story:
"Fathers & Families' highly-publicized lawsuit against the new Massachusetts child support guidelines was heard in a Boston court today. As of 2008 Massachusetts' child support guidelines were already among the highest in the country, and the new guidelines raised them right in the face of one of the worst recessions of the past 100 years.

"As anticipated, Judge MacDonald heard the arguments from representatives of the Massachusetts Chief Justice for Administration and Management Robert A. Mulligan and our attorney Gregory Hession, and took the case under advisement.

"Over 50 Fathers & Families supporters attended the hearing in support. Our lawsuit has been covered by the Associated Press, the New York Times, CBS, WRKO, the Boston Globe, NPR, Newsweek."

And yes, here is the link so you can view the entire article:

You will see a photo of one of the main activists in this affair. Her name is Cheryl Quiambao, and as you might have already guessed, she is female.

Now, the Fathers and Families organization is a kind of a grey-zone organism, given that it is not strictly and narrowly part of the so-called "men's movement", yet is politically right next door to it and even, in a manner of speaking, draws its water from the same well. Such are the complexities and ambiguities of the non-feminist sector. And I hope that my feminist readers are paying attention, and taking notes: they really need to get straight about this stuff!

The updated child-support guidelines in Massachusetts (mentioned in the article) are just another move in the game of perpetual revolution—the latest expansion of the femplex, the latest augmentation of the feminist power base in general, the latest way to suck more blood out of men and move the world closer to the projected goal of female supremacy.

But even if the word feminism never comes up at all, the fact remains that this latest activism campaign constitutes an attack upon feminism because it directly blocks the expansion of feminist innovation. Many of the people involved in the campaign might not think in those terms, but that is exactly what they are doing. They are blocking a plan which directly exploits men in order to empower women, and no matter what anybody says, such a plan is pure, undistilled feminism in its most nakedly elemental form.

It matters not what others call it, or fail to call it. The thing is what it is what it IS, and it needs a consistent name, and as a non-feminist, I say it is feminism! I say this because I hold as good a claim to define the objective forces that shape my world as anybody else does. I stake an additional claim because I know that the average feminist has a confessional interest in promoting her cult and is likely to suppress certain aspects of it.

Feminism is a vast, sprawling, organism—and so is non-feminism. It takes a big beast to vanquish another big beast, or then again maybe it takes a big horde of little beasties to gang up on that big beast and devour it like piranhas, but either way, it takes big to defeat big. And so just as feminism is many things presenting itself in many ways, so too non-feminism must be many things in many ways, in order to encompass and counteract with an adequate range of specialization the many things which are feminism.

It is possible that some of the people in the Fathers and Families group would loosely identify as "feminist", or express mild approval of feminism as they conceive it. On the other hand, it is quite probable that most of the people who oppose them would form a formidable phalanx of indoctrinated adherents to the feminist worldview. The difference between the two groups would be dramatic.

And too, is very likely that the Fathers and Families group would contain a great number of people who know perfectly well what is up with feminism, and would concur with the present writer on most points, even though their immediate political focus is not upon feminism per se, but rather upon the fruits of feminist innnovation. On the other hand, it is unlikely that the opposing gang would contain ANY people of this description.

So the possible presence of mildly feminist-leaning elements (with a naive understanding of feminism) in the Fathers and Families group—and similar groups everywhere—shows us that the border between the feminist and non-feminist sectors is not yet so clearly drawn as we might wish it. That any degree of positive evaluation still adheres to the word feminism (in the minds of people who are NOT profoundly feminist) shows that there is work to be done. The word feminism oughtn't have a halo of any kind—not even a faint one. So, with a developing pressure to get on one side or the other, this word would gain a decisively unsavory aroma, and anybody who is not radically feminist would fight shy of it.

Labels: ,

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Worth a Thousand Words? A Few Hundred Anyway. . .

For distribution:

Hey, didn't I say that Kyle Payne would make a cute poster boy for the Pro-Feminist Men's Movement?



Meet Kyle Payne, Pro-Feminist Sexual Offender!

By the end of the day, feminists are a pack of loud, rancorous, tedious, involuted, inhumanly BORING animals. And drama queens—that too! Nobody else honestly cares about them and, sadder still, they don't honestly care about them! But they stick together like mucous because, even though they can't stand each other any more than the world can stand them, they know that if they go their separate ways, they will DIE their separate ways. And bless their little hearts, but they are deathly afraid to die alone!

If you wonder what the feminists are on about, the answer is: essentially nothing. For what is death if not nothingness? But they love to make noise, they love to squawk importantly, they love to be the center of attention—all of which helps them to keep death at bay. That they are "sick" need not surprise us, but sickest of all are the ones who seek their attention. I call such people sickest of all, because what could possibly be sicker than a little attention whore whoring after the attention of a bigger attention whore?

Today, I would like to introduce you to one of those little attention whores. The name of this pink little worm, is Kyle Payne. The surname resonates quite a bit, but I'll leave you to cop that buzz on your own time. Kyle Payne belongs to a male sub-species which we of the MRA call collaborationists, or "manginas". And before I go any further, I should inform you that Kyle has a blog which you can view HERE:

But now I should explain why Kyle Payne is a person of interest. You see, in addition to being a "mangina" of the classically molluscoid genre, it appears that Kyle is also a sexual predator! I mean, that Kyle is two categories of slimeball rolled into one! Interesting chap, wot?

Kyle Payne was a 22-year-old student at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake, Iowa. Kyle, as a sensitive male, was active in the feminist culture on his campus. He was also employed as a resident advisor in a dormitory, and one day (in the capacity of his office it seems), he entered one of the bedchambers in the building and photographed a breast. This was done without the expressed permission of said breast's owner—said owner being passed out unconscious on the bed in an alcoholic stupor.

Kyle was entangled in several other counts of misconduct, including the presence of child pornography on his laptop computer. He was sentenced to six months in the Buena Vista county jail. For more of his story—his incarceration and whatnot—I'll send you HERE: . You'll be treated to long paragraphs of introspective fancy-dancing and hand-wringing piddle-paddle straight from the horse's mouth himself. Hey, Kyle's a bright college kid; he knows how to pitch the slop!

(By the way, did you know that Kyle Payne is a supporter of critical literacy? Check THIS, you gaping hillbilly: So how does it feel to be critically illiterate?)

Belledame, a liberal lesbian who writes the Fetch My Axe blog, offers her take on the pained ruckus HERE: Belledame's self-indulgent style might wear upon your nerves after two or three paragraphs, but patience grasshoppers! Here's a snippet:

"So, I'm surfing around, procrastinating, you know how it goes, and I find what appears to me at first to be yet another garden variety (as these things go, there aren't actually THAT many of them I don't think) male radical feminist blog, one Kyle Payne. Since I'm in the mood to snark, I read and roll my eyes a bit: yeah, your classic: all of 22 years old and teddibly teddibly earnest, doesn't seem totally rabid or nothin' but your basic pompous, sanctimonious hetboy dweeb fangirling Andrea Dworkin and other Famous Not The Fun Kind Feminists for whatever reason. Yeah, there are a few of these around, mostly kind of, well, um, creepy and risible in a milquetoast way at best, foamingly horrid at worst. Ime, imnsho, etc."
What towers above all else in that twittering passage, is that here we have a self-declared feminist of some standing in the online feminist community whose gut feeling about pro-feminist lickspittles of Kyle's sort, is nearly identical to my own! Heavens, I am seeing eye-to-eye with a feminist, and that makes me fear for my soul! :-( As to Kyle's specific offense in the present case, Belledame's reaction is an angry "fuck you!", in contrast to my own more restrained "yuck!"

If you dig around, you'll soon discover that Kyle is a cause célèbre among cyberspace feminists. They've assembled quite a posse to run his arse out of Dodge, and a number of feminist bloggers are doing what they can, to sing his glory to the ends of the universe. One of the ringleaders in the "barbecue kyle" movement is RenegadeEvolution, a porno-professional and quasi-feminist of the "sex-positive" school who persistently gets flayed by radical feminists. (Such is the tectonically fractured landscape on which these dramas unfold!) RenEv has blogged like all hell about Kyle, and you'll find these cat-clawed writings arrayed in a string for your reading convenience HERE: . . .with pertaining links sprinkled throughout.

Yes, they are howling for Kyle Payne's blood! Another notable member of that lynch mob, the nauseating Ginmar, is well-known to MRAs who have been on the scene for a while. For your information, Ginmar is so foul that even Ampersand won't put up with her shit! Now think what sport it would be, to duct-tape Kyle and Ginmar face to face, then sew them into a giant gunny-sack with a pack of wild Australian dingo dogs and heave the whole yapping, writhing mess off the Vernita bridge into the mighty Columbia river! Well hey, what's imagination worth, if you can't imagine things . . . right? ;)

More than anything, the feminists are enraged because Kyle parades himself under color of feminism, blogging upon feminist issues, linking to feminist websites, and so on. They are also wroth that he has not made a perfect act of contrition: he has not abased himself; he has not grovelled. But for me, given that I am a non-feminist, such feminist parochialities hold merely an observational interest. I am like an entomologist gazing into a microscope, learning what I can learn about that little world down yonder.

All the same, let' be clear about something: Kyle Payne is a crawling form of life. And I doubt not that every feminist on earth would agree with me. Ahhh. . . but the feminists have their reasons, and I have mine, and that is where the road forks! For the feminists (as you might expect) see this as only another chapter in the chronicles of male culpa, and they wish to skewer Kyle Payne in order to make their universal point about Men. By contrast, I wish to skewer Kyle in order to make a more particular point about men who support feminism. That distinction is worth keeping in sight; it is a dividing line of prime importance.

From the non-feminist angle, and especially the MRA angle, Kyle Payne is . . . a traitor. He is a male citizen who collaborates with feminism and betrays us all. Need I say more? So, my reason for despising Kyle Payne is the MRA reason. Mind you, that he is a sexual predator does nothing to recommend him, since I think poorly of sexual predators: I think they are weird, creepy and pathetic. Furthermore, I think they are fools. They fail to intrigue me or engage me because, being what I consider foolish, they lack what I consider wisdom. Nor do I see them as worthy allies—they haven't got the right stuff! But again, it is of less importance to me that Kyle Payne is a sexual predator, than that he is a quisling who sucks up to the feminists. And I can scarcely convey the pleasure it gives me to see a guy like Kyle in the particular brand of trouble he has gotten into! And if that sounds brash, well, it's just the way things are now. I am showing you the times.

But can we extract any useful information from such an insect? Yes, I think we can. I think we can profit greatly if we learn to interrogate, or problematize, the quintessential psychic constitution of the pro-feminist male. And I mean ALL such males, clear across the board—for they run remarkably true to type. Accordingly, I would like to know how many Kyle Paynes or potential Kyle Paynes, as a percentage, are likely to exist among this class of men. Ought we suppose that Kyle is unique in kind, or would that overstrain the order of plausibility?

Really, is it plausible that Kyle Payne is sui generis among pro-feminist males? If even ONE such chap as Kyle Payne could exist within this cohort, what inherent mechanism would exclude others? And if sexual predators compose a demographic stratum of 'X' thickness among men at large, why would they not compose an equally thick layer among the pro-feminist male sub-group? Does the angelic rhetoric espoused by this sub-group count as evidence of an underlying angelic nature, or would it be naive of us to so conclude?

Very well, I shall throw down the gauntlet. It is my considered belief that most pro-feminist males are Kyle Paynes waiting to happen. They are potential Kyle Paynes—struggling with their "inner Kyle", just like Kyle himself. The crawling, self-depreciating servility these fellows display toward women (and toward feminism) ought to make us suspect right away that something is amiss, that something is broken deep within them. And too, their remarkable cookie-cutter similarity in point of rhetorical self-presentation, argues a deep structural commonality, clear across the board, in point of psychopathology. What could drive them all to behave in such a similarly eccentric way, if not some deep-seated factor which they have in common? They are so very much alike, these people. So very mechanistical, like inducted cult members—so very brittle, so very defensive, and like female feminists, so very lacking in humor. I can assure you, that any randomly selected group of MRAs would convey a markedly different pulse of life than these people.

The self-depreciation is especially telling; it shades into what is more accurately termed self-loathing. This latter quality comes to the fore, most conspicuously, as an open and very vocal attack upon "manhood" in the abstract. I believe it is precisely their own self-loathing, which they are projecting onto normal men—and onto manhood in the abstract. And considering what they might be assumed to struggle with, it should come as no surprise that they would act in this manner. One of the commenters on Kyle Payne's blog, a feminist, had this to say:
"The crime which was committed is one Kyle will regret for the rest of his days. I believe this with every fiber of my being. Not because he was punished, not because he was caught, but because it exposed something within himself that he was not previously aware of. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote “The man hath penance done, and penance more will do.” There is no doubt in my mind that Kyle has done and will do penance in his heart and mind as he attempts to live out his life."
All right, so there was something within Kyle Payne that he was not previously aware of. Or rather, not consciously aware of. But then again, if he had kiddie porn on his computer, he must have been consciously aware of it, so this is a bit confusing. However, the point of interest is that here we have a pro-feminist male in a cult of angelic devotion to womanhood who harbored, deep within his psyche, a very interesting slime-cluster. And the entire purpose of this angelic cult, is to demonize: to blame normal men and normal "manhood" for what is loathsome within yourself— to deny what is loathsome within yourself by projecting it onto somebody else. Making somebody else take the heat for your sins.

In the case of Kyle Payne, I don't think the feminist commenter really knows what the hell she is talking about. There may be no doubt in her mind, but there is considerable doubt in my mind that Kyle has actually "done penance". To me, it seems that he is stonewalling like a politician. He may be inwardly squirming with embarrassment that he was caught, but he is bravely showing no sign of it. Rather, he is bluffing and twaddling his way along—and my word, but he's slicker than cat shit on a linoleum floor! The boy reminds me quite a bit of both Ampersand and Hugo Schwyzer—both of whom are aged around 40 however, and considerably more sophisticated. (Hugo, as you may be aware, has a checkered past. And Amp, apart from being a shifty little weasel, couldn't help compromising himself with that infamous "pornified linkage" in order to boost his web traffic.)

Let us say, that deep within the psyche of the pro-feminist male lurks a seething cauldron of twisted sexual emotions. And getting involved with feminism is part of an elaborate "dance" they perform in order to get a handle on all of that complex turmoil. They need to manage their psychopathologies, they need to feel validated as individuals, and feminism is just the cult for the job because it permits them to do both. Clearly, they don't gain their validation from the society of normal men, so they seek it in the feminist cult, which rewards them with morsels of ego-stroking known in the quaint feminist vernacular as "cookies". They are like dogs begging for a treat, in quest of these "cookies".

I believe that masochism plays a considerable role in the psychology of the collaborationist male. Kyle Payne is in a position that must surely be . . . . painful. At any rate, that is a salient likelihood, and I believe it holds the key. None of this untidiness came about by accident. Kyle unconsciously engineered the whole show, and now he is precisely where he wants to be: smack in the middle of a masochistic, attention-whoring hog heaven! And the funny thing is, he's still begging for cookies! He crawls.

No, he is not exactly "doing penance", as the feminist commenter suggested. If he were truly doing penance, it would mean that he had truly confronted his transgression and gained some authentic knowledge of himself. And if he had done THAT, then he would have straightway understood the sick inner drive which drove him to feminism in the first place, and he would have cast away feminism as a thing no longer profitable. But that he clings to feminism shows that he has neither done penance, nor gained any authentic knowledge of himself. And so he carries on with his stonewalling charade, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if he is still sneaking kiddie porn on the sly. But now he's having more fun than ever, having ratcheted-up the level of masochism to a pitch that must be truly exquisite for him. He is living exactly as he wants to live. He crawls.

And how do I know all of this? Because I am a simple soul who cares naught for the vain things of this world. That is how.

The fact that Kyle Payne is a traitor, and the fact that he is a sexual predator, are linked. They are joined at the hip. They are part and parcel. Kyle carries a slime wad in his psyche which drove him to sexual offense, but that very same slime wad drove him also to embrace the cult of feminism in the first place. To be a traitor, in other words. He crawls.

You couldn't quite say that he betrayed himself, since it was precisely self-fulfilment he was looking for. So clearly, he betrayed the rest of us. But if Kyle Payne had NOT been a potential sexual offender, would he have been drawn to the feminist cult at all? To state that another way, is it plausible that the slimy wad in Kyle's psyche contributed absolutely NO weight to the decision in either direction? And how if Kyle had been free of this particular psychic trash? Would he STILL have drifted toward the feminist cult, or would something quite different have engaged his interest? For example, is it possible that he would have become an MRA?

Earlier, I posed a question: whether, by any form of necessity, the male pro-feminist tribe might harbor a lower-than-average percentage of potential sexual offenders. I stated initially, that I found no reason to credit this supposition.

And soon thereafter, I proffered as a further item of belief that most pro-feminist males are in fact "potential Kyle Paynes"—that is, potential sexual offenders. In support of this belief, I pointed out the overwhelming uniformity of type among the pro-feminist male population. Such ease of stereotypification, as I suggested, loaded the odds in favor of a deep psychic uniformity among this group.

I have subsequently taken that thesis for granted. I have made clear that I regard pro-feminism as a kind of cult, whose members would embody traits that are characteristically cultic. And so, I would have the reader understand that I regard cults of any sort as atypical of the larger population, because they operate as karmic funnels. I mean that you oughtn't expect the mix of human ingredients within the cult, to mirror what you would find among humanity at large. A disproportionate concentration of very specific types ought to be expected within the cultic milieu—variable according to the particular cult focus, of course.

So if I were a sexual pervert or predator of a particular sort (and not just any sort, mind you), I would make a beeline for the pro-feminist men's movement. But if I were a strong-minded, self-esteeming male (which I am), I would shun that subculture as I would shun a dumpster full of amputated body parts behind a hospital.

In the course of his confessional writing, Kyle has this to say:
"The young man who outed me to the feminist blogosphere was (and perhaps still is) a serial rapist.. . . I’m not surprised when I realize that many of the most misogynist men I have ever met, who wouldn’t be caught dead supporting women’s liberation in any way, shape, or form, will gladly stand shoulder-to-shoulder with feminists when it comes to identifying a scapegoat for sexual violence."
Forgive me, but I do not consider Kyle Payne to be a "scapegoat"— not abstractly, not hypothetically, not remotely. A scapegoat, properly understood, is an innocent creature taking the heat for the sins of others. But in the present case, Kyle gets no heat for any sins other than his own. Nor does he appear to be an innocent creature. Certainly, Kyle does not bear the burden of MY particular sins. My chief sin is procrastination, and I do not know enough about Kyle to know if he is a procrastinator. But if he is, then he does not bear the burden for MY procrastination! Nor is Kyle Payne the "lamb of god who taketh away the sins of the (male) world". He is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Jesus Christ! And since I am sure the feminists would concur wholeheartedly on that last point, I will stand with them shoulder-to-shoulder. There is no lack of genuine male scapegoats in the world today, but Kyle Payne is unworthy to elect himself into their company. He crawls.

He makes a fine poster boy for the pro-feminist men's movement though, doesn't he? Maybe not the poster boy THEY would like, but hey, what makes them think they still have a monopoly on their own public image?? But the feminists are trying to hound Kyle clean out of cyberspace altogether. I admit that I don't necessarily want his blog to disappear, since I'd get a kick out of seeing how long he can "tough it out". And so long as the blog endures, well . . . it makes for fun target practice, yes? However, que sera, sera! I am archiving his pages, and I would encourage my cohorts to do likewise.

You know, it surely feels warm-and-fuzzy to sit around the ol' campfire with the feminists, roasting Kyle Payne like a marshmallow. Honestly, do you have any idea how this makes my little heart glow? Eh? At any rate, I have written this article because I want to introduce Kyle to a larger audience, a non-feminist audience. Mostly, I want other MRAs to learn about all of this; maybe they'll pitch in and join the fun!


Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Female Circumcision is a Female Idea

I learned about the following, from a link on Angry Harry's website:

"It took a death threat to stop Abdi’s wife from circumcising their two daughters, aged 2 and 4. She called him from Somalia while on holiday to say she wanted to carry out the procedure.

"Abdi, a London-based Somali, said that his wife’s eagerness to circumcise their daughters was fuelled by a combination of religious, cultural and tribal pressures placed on her after she took the girls to Somalia for a brief summer break last year.

"But he refused to be swayed, despite his wife’s argument that the girls would improve their chances of attracting a good husband because they would be perceived as being more traditional and pure.

“I told my wife and her mother — who was really eager to have my girls circumcised — that if they dare do it, I will kill my wife,” he said. “And I also said I will take the girls to the GP when they return from Somalia to make sure that they didn’t have it done to them.”

"Abdi, 29, is one of a growing number of African men opposing female circumcision because of the psychological and physiological effects it has on its victims.

“It is women who believe in the concept as their duty to look after their children,” said Abdi, who is also aware of prospective mother-in-laws examining their sons’ future brides to ensure they are circumcised.

"Women “fear that if they don’t circumcise their daughters then they won’t be able to get them married”, he said.

“I know many men who work very hard — and at times make serious threats to their wives — to make sure their girls don’t get circumcised,” he added."

Ahh. . . so the mothers-in-law are the pivotal culprits in that game. Wouldn't ya know it?

Well. Hurrah for those MEN who are working very hard to put a stop to such things!

Ain't that right, feminists? Ain't that right?

Feminists? Feminists????

Oh my! I am hearing a lot of silence. . . . . . . .

Oh very well! Go on and scream MISOGYNY because I called out something bad about women! You know goddamn well you want to say that, so say it!! I ain't afraid o' no big bad M word! Try me! Go on, bitch! I double-dog dare ya! TRY ME!!!

Or. . . can it be. . . . that you DON'T HONESTLY CARE about female circumcision at all—or any other bad thing happening to women—unless men are shown to be the guilty parties. . .?

Eh. . .? But of course! I knew this all along!

All right, so I would advise you to completely ignore the part about female circumcision, and shine your spotlight exclusively upon those men who are making death threats, so that it turns into a narrative about patriarchal violence against women!

There. See how easy that was?

Ahhhh.....what a relief!

Here is the article in its native habitat:

P.S: Looking at the post just prior to this, I was struck by the thread of commonality
which runs between the two stories. In both cases, it is about WOMEN who
are keen to perform knife operations upon genitalia. Something to think about,
eh . . . ?